Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

As I mentioned before, the hard/soft reference was less about the arbitrary dichotomy in terms of the quality of tension, as it is an indication of the broad spectrum of approaches. In that respect, Mike's caution regarding the tendency towards "muscle-based jin" warrants careful consideration.

Whilst I am familiar with some of the classical admonitions - some of which are evident in Ashe's 13 points, practically, I see little difference compared with, say, (what little I know of) the Aunkai methods, in terms of "building the frame". The differences may be purely semantic, or in the minute details, or how individuals approach it - depending on what level they're at.

And although I understand that Sam Chin is trying to articulate these concepts more clearly, I feel it could be made clearer and simpler.

In that respect, I think folks are going to have to more clearly define their use of certain terms, and nut out the fine detail...

the process of unifying yourself is only half the game (i.e. managing force within the body / 13 points), you still have to unify / flow with opponent (i.e. applying force accurately on the opponent.)

Well, what I was trying to say was that the act of unifying/flowing with the opponent was less an external adjustment, so much as a manifestation of the adjustment happening from the inside.
I.E. I can change the force vectors based on intent, on the internal configuration, rather than relying on the actual angle/pressure of the point of contact (although it can help).

The way in which you describe is that you're adding a separate layer of good old "external" vectors (angle of the limbs etc) ...as opposed to concentrating on achieving the same effect from within.

And I just don't think Sam actually focuses so much on the external factor as much, despite what he says.

Just to clarify I'm not here to to say one is "right" or "wrong," but trying to shed some light on what you're trying to say.

[Taking a simple thought exercise as an example:
Let's say you have two people, A&B.
A & B are facing each other, feet shoulder width apart, knees relatively straight, hands down by sides.
A then reaches over and holds B down with both hands applying a dumb force (non-jin), to hold the wrists down. If you were A how would you off balance them, and take their balance? Would you "have" to move the arms to do so?

Posting from my phone, so you'll have to forgive me for not quoting, but...

Of course a lot of what I'm posting will seem unclear, because it's being posted out of context of where it belongs in a specific curriculum. I'm not here to "teach" anybody, but I am here to share how we train, and to learn a little about how you guys approach your training.

Let's be honest, all of us have made our commitments to the systems that we feel work for us, so I'm not here to convert anybody, but at the same time I hope that some folks will be interested enough to dig a little deeper and find out where some of the things I'm talking about fit in.

I have to confess myself very interested in Dan Hardens stuff. (if only HE'D post some video)

Re: Rob, just out of curiosity, how long did you train with Sifu before moving to Japan?

As far as your post; I'll say 'its really hard to say'. Straight off I'd say I disagree. At this point I have a fairly good understanding of ILC, and the reason Sifu insists on testing student level 5 and above himself is because that's the point where you really break into ILC's method, where you really begin to manifest the right feel 'on touch'. Not coincidentally, that's also the beginning of 'unifying self with opponent'.

Lot's of systems teach how to unify yourself / build the frame, etc. But REALLY learning how to unify yourself with the opponent, in such a way that you learn to manifest offense/defense simultaneously on the point is something else altogether.

Sorry for posting back to back, but I'm on my phone after all...
Re: Ron's A&B scenario;

You should already be unifying yourself with the opponent before contact is even made so that as the process of contact is under way your maintaining opponent outside of your circle while penetrating opponents circle simultaneously.

At that point there,a no need to off balance since you can just strike in, unless opponent can manage to recover enough to manifest some defense (brushing power) at which point you can start to off balance while looking to re-penetrate his sphere to you can strike in or off balance enough to throw.

Re: Rob, just out of curiosity, how long did you train with Sifu before moving to Japan?

Ashe,

It was only for a scat of two years, and I'd have to say the bulk of the training I owed to Dave.
Let me be clear though, at that point I didn't have any internal dev whatsoever. However, I was privy to be able to touch Sam and Dave a lot, and they gave me a litmus test for what was "actual" skill.
Though I did develop a lot of muscle backed structure...something that takes a while to undo :-p

Quote:

Ashe Higgs wrote:

Lot's of systems teach how to unify yourself / build the frame, etc. But REALLY learning how to unify yourself with the opponent, in such a way that you learn to manifest offense/defense simultaneously on the point is something else altogether.

I dunno Ashe, having felt Sam, and others, all of them shoot for manifesting "offense/defense simultaneously on the point of contact."
The more I look, the more I see commonalities.

Quote:

Ashe Higgs wrote:

You should already be unifying yourself with the opponent before contact is even made so that as the process of contact is under way your maintaining opponent outside of your circle while penetrating opponents circle simultaneously.

That's a given, but you bring up a good point. But rather than looking at it that way, maybe it would be easy to reduce it to simpler force vectors. To be honest, at this point you sound like you're simply regurgitating Sam, and I've got faith that you can do better, and explain it in your own vocab

Quote:

Ashe Higgs wrote:

At that point there,a no need to off balance since you can just strike in, unless opponent can manage to recover enough to manifest some defense (brushing power) at which point you can start to off balance while looking to re-penetrate his sphere to you can strike in or off balance enough to throw.

To clarify, the exercise is not a technique, but a construct to conveniently examine the generation of forces etc.(Hell, it's a stupid position to be in, as are most exercises, but they're formed that way for a reason)

Let's leave strikes etc out of it for now.
Your arms are down by your sides, and someone is hold your wrists. He's giving you a dumb force, how do you deal with it?
No one's stepping, we're simply talking shenfa/body method.

I'm trying to get a bit of style-independent analyzation going on, which I know from personal experience, is possible between people that have the basics hammered in.

To short circuit something that might come up, one way to look at it from Sam's perspective might be that it's a Yin (front side) on Yang (back side) scenario, where B is contacting your Yang with his Yin, with you playing underhand instead of top-hands. (If you weren't going to go down this path forgive me).
I'm advocating throwing this out as well for now.

Since "tension" seems to have different meanings in different training methodologies, would "stretch" be a better fit than "tension," as far as the Aunkai is concerned? Or does it mean exactly what "tension" commonly means?

methink, the tension is the result of the stretch, not tension as in tighten up muscle. think of a fully inflated basketball versus half-inflated one. the fully inflated one stretch the skin tight which created a tension that spread the applied force to every part of the ball. the question is how do you stretch your body? isometric or breath or something else?

I continue to suggest people go meet people. Not all methods are the same, not all will lead in the same direction. Stop listening to these guys who set up court and tell you who they will or will not recommend.
It is enough that you now have an awareness that IP/ Aiki exists and has been the driver behind these mysterious skills that have been talked about in the arts. As many of you are (thank God) finally realizing some have had an agenda all along. Now you need to start checking people and methods out.

Some of the people teaching "internals" are in fact-not; but are marginal, using tensioned paths that will sooner or later have to be discarded and reworked,
Some have skills in traditional arts, with only basic understanding.
Some have a more well rounded education but who's actual skill level in use goes from laughable to mediocre.
Then you have the master class;
Some of whom are nothing more than good jujutsu men with basic linear jin skills and cool waza
Some are the real powerhouses and sources for information.
And knowledge is not wisdom or skill
If you are going to be content with listening to the blow hards...well then you get what you paid for.

Be Martial Art researchers. You can spend all of your money and time investing in the teachers who have by and large screwed us up and taught only surface skills, or you can find people with unusual skills who know how to teach you to do the same.
Some of you are going to-in the end- only want to stay within a tradition and mask your own weaknesses with waza.
Some of you will settle for simple skills that enhance your waza,
Some will pick a camp
Some of you are going to really get it.

I've had some interesting phone calls recently about what is being said around town and some of the real ugliness involved. For some this has stopped being an honest discussion a long time ago. It's all an aggenda. There are those who know it is true, but like the martial artists they are, they aren't saying a word.
There are many of you who have met me and know I am consistent and transparent. As one teacher put it "Brutally honest"; for that reason I want no part of the new "pick a side and spread lies" agenda and politicing -now setting itself up around IP/Aiki...and all done while claiming to be so nice and open on the web. Interestingly enough there are people with information that can "out" certain aggenda's at the core of much of the BS but no one wants to make the move. SSDD. It does nothing for me. I have better things to do

Ladies and gents, I don't have to say a word or name names, that niggling little nudge you have, that "guess" your instincts have warned you about-is shared by others as well.
Get out and check people out. Compare and take care of you. These are the finest skill the arts have to offer -don't let the some of the people involved in the discussion of them, get in your way.
Good luck in your training.
Dan

I'm not here to "teach" anybody, but I am here to share how we train, and to learn a little about how you guys approach your training.

Not speaking to you directly Ashe, but generally to the good folk listening in - that is the whole point of my starting this thread. As Rob said, it's about looking for common ground.

Quote:

Let's be honest, all of us have made our commitments to the systems that we feel work for us, so I'm not here to convert anybody, but at the same time I hope that some folks will be interested enough to dig a little deeper and find out where some of the things I'm talking about fit in.

Again, I'm not speaking to you directly, but, people, that is the whole point of this thread, and I'm glad you picked up on it.

Quote:

But REALLY learning how to unify yourself with the opponent, in such a way that you learn to manifest offense/defense simultaneously on the point is something else altogether.

IOW... Aiki!

Quote:

how many different ways do you need to say the sky is blue?

Yes, but to a visually impaired person, what is sky and what is blue?

Speaking generally again, Rob's hypothetical is a good example because it is demonstrates the basic concept of "unifying" one's self with another... and is the first thing shown/taught in Aikido. Most Aikido folk would/should recognize this as a standing variation of kokyu-ho.

Speaking generally again, Rob's hypothetical is a good example because it is demonstrates the basic concept of "unifying" one's self with another... and is the first thing shown/taught in Aikido. Most Aikido folk would/should recognize this as a standing variation of kokyu-ho.

Actually it is an example fraught with misunderstanding. There are external ways to handle that force / there are internal ways to handle that force and both can handle and capture the guy exerting on you with dumb and even trained force-hence the reason so many are fooled or confused by so called “expert” martial artists.
It's another reason I am often disappointed with these discussions. You set up an example and talk about THEE way to do it as if there is only one internal method or means to accomplish the task and one external and they are delineated as absolutes. Than you sit around and wait for some approved guy to put his approved stamp on it and say it is correct. Granted there are correct means and commonalities that are internal, no disagreement from me; but talking about it as a singular thing is just nonsense.

Getting under
Getting under with intent will do it-external will not cut it there- and it becomes a very potent little ditty to use. The "straights" (and those just learning} will move the body down to help them feel the down and up as a vector and never move forward from there. Maybe some will teach to "just use intent"... forever, which is just as stupid. I can stand stalk straight and make people rise by getting under without moving; many of you have felt me do it...and yet if you try that BS in grappling you are the moron for your effort. In that venue you need intent and movement. So how ironic is it to use movement joined with intent at the newbie level, to get to pure intent without movement that does some pretty startling things in a trained body, so that in the end you can arrive at movement again. Only this time it is pure intent driven movement. At any stage in between you need a coach, need to check, and 99% of the MA population will be clueless to see, and most will not be able to feel, except to say What the______?

Capturing
You can stand there and use your frame in a way that will lift him off of his base into you and then control him. This is done by and large without overall use of structure and uses frame and intent.
But then you can stand there stalk straight and breath him in, without really using frame much at all (other than basic support, instead you are using a trained connection between your hands, feet, through dantien (hara)

Entering / leaving
Or you can capture him with just a little breath work (or frame) and if you know how to use your connection you can enter him -while leaving; causing a rotation in his center
Or
You can "set" a contact point (there are different reasons for thinking this way) and cause rotation around himself or you
These "contact points" can happen anywhere along a spiraling arc at any point in your body; making for some interesting work in "actual fighting (MMA).
Now at any point in time, you are not going to just get "dumb force" for a grip either- so you need to add more intent driven motion to move people. Dumb force is a term I find to be rather "dumb" in itself; there are many grapplers who have learned some basic soft jin and even segmented assigned movement and heightened listening skills. It is very crude quasi internal work, but it is anything but dumb, and why they are such a good test for internal people. I have met some masters of arts with supposed internal power and I could handle them with soft "dumb force" and others where I had to be "on"

Trying to build a consensus among the latest IP' aiki craze is about as effective as was building a consensus among the MA community who didn't have a clue about IP/Aiki.
Just remember you all were among the former, before you became the later.
You have some internal guys showing you interesting things, Maybe you have one who can't or wont fight with what he supposedly knows, a few who will fight and move with what they supposedly know. Of the ones who can and will fight you, what part is basic jin skill, what part is more developed but just linear skills, what part is a more fully developed compliment of skills, and you are trying to figure out what's what.

I look at films of three or four of the acknowledged Japanese art "experts" teaching traditional arts with internals and I just see basic linear movement. And read some books on “Ki in the martial arts” by yet another expert that don't address “ki in the martial arts” at all. So I sit and shrug; if you say anything it makes divided camps and their supporters argue "You just have to feel him its amazing" It -is- amazing to those who can't do it. What am I going to say "I'm amazed that you are so amazed?
And the net becomes contentious.
So I might not be so sure of exactly who you are trying to build a consensus with. Some are for you and some are for themselves as the new experts doling out advice. The community has choices and resources; so get out and about and test-the smart guys are already figuring things out.
Good luck in your training
Dan

You set up an example and talk about THEE way to do it as if there is only one internal method or means to accomplish the task and one external and they are delineated as absolutes. Than you sit around and wait for some approved guy to put his approved stamp on it and say it is correct. Granted there are correct means and commonalities that are internal, no disagreement from me; but talking about it as a singular thing is just nonsense.

I totally agree, and to be clear I think there's multiple ways to solve this particular problem, some different than others, which doesn't make the other ways any less "correct."

And I could give a rats ass over whether someone "approves" of a given solution or not, I think it's important to keep your own council. We're all learning.

"Dumb force" is dumb, again I agree. But it could help to establish a baseline as to how different people approach a problem. Otherwise it's a hassle to talk about it in terms of other kinds of force generation.

Say for instance,
Getting under + utilizing the winding along the inner lines etc (lines of connection running on the inside of the legs, or in Sam's terms, the yin side), to cause person B to be drawn inwards and off balance.

Not necessarily the best solution, but a possible one.
I prefer drawing in, as opposed to popping someone off since it's more viable to have them stuck to you as opposed to simply bouncing them away.

In any event, what I iterated above could be completely off-base, in which case I'm fair game to be called on as well.

Nice discussion here. I think what's being bandied about is that there's a desired way of doing things (via intent having tangible effect), there's less optimal ways (via overt movement, local muscles, relying on timing and external tricks, etc) . . but presuming that you are going for soft . . what ways are you training to get there . . checkpoints, etc. Per what Dan wrote, there's different ways, so how to get to the optimal way, allowing for the requisite conditioning and rewiring the body?

Actually it is an example fraught with misunderstanding. There are external ways to handle that force / there are internal ways to handle that force and both can handle and capture the guy exerting on you with dumb and even trained force-hence the reason so many are fooled or confused by so called "expert" martial artists.

Misunderstanding the example, due to misperception, or lack of instruction, is not the fault of the example. But I see your point, Dan.

Quote:

You set up an example and talk about THEE way to do it as if there is only one internal method or means to accomplish the task and one external and they are delineated as absolutes. Than you sit around and wait for some approved guy to put his approved stamp on it and say it is correct. Granted there are correct means and commonalities that are internal, no disagreement from me; but talking about it as a singular thing is just nonsense.

I don't think that is the case here, Dan. As you well know, there are many different approaches, some more external than others. Just trying to get to the heart of the internals - the overlap of correct means and commonalities... so to speak.

<snip>Thanks for the clarification here. Much appreciated.

Quote:

Trying to build a consensus among the latest IP' aiki craze is about as effective as was building a consensus among the MA community who didn't have a clue about IP/Aiki.

I don't think that is the case here either... comparing approaches is not building consensus. IF consensus is the result of such comparisons, then fair enough... but it's not the goal - at least not my intent for starting the thread. Hope this clarifies things.

...and yet if you try that BS in grappling you are the moron for your effort

I have been that moron.
Is it just me, or is it at the beginning of this stuff you have no idea of its extents…so you do/try some pretty stupid things? trying to find the 'boundaries'? Probably just me.

Quote:

So how ironic is it to use movement joined with intent at the newbie level, to get to pure intent without movement that does some pretty startling things in a trained body, so that in the end you can arrive at movement again. Only this time it is pure intent driven movement.

Are there other such roadmaps to IP? I don't see what other pattern it could be. I had not seen the pattern in this way…

Quote:

Entering / leaving
Or you can capture him with just a little breath work (or frame) and if you know how to use your connection you can enter him -while leaving; causing a rotation in his center

You remind me of this clip of Liu Chengde you posted a while back<. ooooh..."Amazing!" In fact. And no…I have no idea what you'd say. ; ) Just thinking out loud...but it occurs to me the uke actually spins himself as he 'uncoils' from the parting-implanted-load?!? Pretty neat thought.

Josh
I really hope other people feel empowered to share more, as it seems everyone wants others to do the same. Perhaps we each hold some of the keys for others' understandings and only ‘get' when we give.
I am not a hippy.

Why it it so quiet in here? We are all learning, no?
Thanks for reading.

Are there other such roadmaps to IP? I don't see what other pattern it could be. I had not seen the pattern in this way…

Hi Josh
I prefer to teach:
Intent, no external movement
Then
Movement with intent
But for some they have trouble so I combine certain *patterned* movements that will (in the end) be very useful *new* ways to move in a fight, (once re-combined with trained intent).

A most interesting factor is the nature of that movemment; not all is the same. Thinking all you need do is some breath work and "move with ki" and incorporate that into any movement is just simply ridiculous and is going to have people end up stronger but by and large still "moving" with many of the same problems they did before. It's not enough to get people where I suspect they want to go. And they will be bested by those with more intelligent and in depth training.

There are methods to use IP/Aiki in patterned movement. I am talking about ways to move that are not normal, that cannot in fact even be done or pulled off with external mechanics and these are very powerful in fighting. The ways to express power from IP/Aiki has a rationale in physical movement, movement, that put quite plainly-will simply take most Martial artists apart in any number of ways.
I guess it all depends on your experience in teaching and your experience in fighting with IP/aiki to know the difference and be able to both demonstrate and teach it.

Quote:

Why it it so quiet in here? We are all learning, no?

I was never much interested in teaching and coaching on the internet in the first place. Then this idea was proposed, Josh; to openly share and be all "good golly lets swap information." Due to certain parameters, and certain people- I never trusted that, but talked more openly behind the scene and shared. Then the reality set in. There are some guys playing this game with a devisive and self-serving agenda, Josh. In the end it was the same old Martial Art crap, now wrapped up in a different package. I want nothing from these men. I'm going to support the teachers I commit to and a few other select people that I trust and that just may be it for me. Why? I have grown truly disgusted by some of the people involved in this new "movement." They're not my kind of people.

Quote:

You remind me of this clip of Liu Chengde you posted a while back. ooooh..."Amazing!" In fact. And no…I have no idea what you'd say. ; ) Just thinking out loud...but it occurs to me the uke actually spins himself as he 'uncoils' from the parting-implanted-load?!? Pretty neat thought.

Well this one was good too. here
He was fun to play with, though he never got me to move like any of those guys, and I got repetitive shoulder and elbow bombs to boot!
Wonderful guy! There are some very interesting and valuable lessons in those two videos.
Cheers
Dan

I look at films of three or four of the acknowledged Japanese art "experts" teaching traditional arts with internals and I just see basic linear movement.

Hi Dan,

Who are some of these 'experts' that you speak of? I'm a very piqued n00b and am trying to establish some starting points for further research/training. I appreciate that different people will have different opinions, but you appear to be highly regarded in this arena, and I would appreciate your views.

On that note, I happen to have access to a training DVD of Endo Seishiro (Atari and Musubi), of which I am extremely fascinated with [ref:- youtube sample clip. I'm wondering if what he is demonstrating is/can be considered 'internal power' or is merely 'stupid jin tricks' or something else?